Massive Federal Land Liquidation in the Works?

I was browsing the news and I happened on a rather intersting article. If this means what I think it means, the ability of corporations and private
owners to exploit land within the United States just grew exponentially.

Private companies and individuals would be able to buy large tracts of federal land, from sagebrush basins to high-peak hiking trails around the West,
under the terms of the spending bill passed Friday by a two-vote margin in the House of Representatives.

This kind of thing really pisses me off, and it will take the help of the individual states to stop it. As per the Constitution, the federal
government does not own the land they are trying to sell. They are very limited on what land they can use in the states, and D.C. (the ten mile
square) is really the only land they can use without states permission. The states involved really need to stand up and say "no, you will not
sell a deed to that land, and you can pack up your FBI/ATF/DEA/ offices and you military bases while you are at it, we no longer grant you lease."
Not that it will ever happen, it will take mobile citizens with 30-06 riffles to do that, and America just doesn’t have it in her anymore, what with
our momyfied, Ritalin popping, do –gooder, it could never happen here youth.

The Bush administration is selling the land interests to timber companies and other big businesses. Remember that this administration is not terribly
environmentally friendly and is opening the ANWR lands to drilling.

But lawyers who have parsed its language say the real beneficiaries could be real estate developers, whose business has become a more potent economic
engine in the West than mining.

And.....

Critics say it could open the door for developers to use the claims to assemble large land parcels for projects like houses, hotels, ski resorts, spas
or retirement communities.

Is this a realistic possibility?? Is there an endless market for the upscale homes this type of development would bring?? With out sourced tech jobs
and loss of manufacturing jobs, who is left to buy these expensive houses? (There are rumors that the housing 'bubble' is in for trouble much like
the tech bubble was.....at least in my area. But it still seems that everyday a new exclusive subdivision goes up......)

The author of the bill claims "that allowing more mine-claim lands to be purchased would be an economic boon to rural communities that often struggle
in the boom and bust cycle of mining....... rural American families livelihoods depend on sustained economic development,"

I can't see how this could help the economic development of the area....beyound a few real estate agents making good commissions from selling the
high price range houses, the majority of jobs, I imagine, will be housekeeping, restaurant, or the lower paying health aide positions.

The Bush administration is selling the land interests to timber companies and other big businesses. Remember that this administration is not terribly
environmentally friendly and is opening the ANWR lands to drilling.

So what am I missing? I got that part.

Actually, the article says one of the reasons why this was allowed to pass was because environmentalists were so focused on protecting ANWR.

ANWR is a purely environmental issue, the national parks throughout America, and the bevy of Federal land, that's a quality of life issue for all
Americans, in addition to being an environmental issue.

I think the one word distillation of this administration and their record would be...DISTRACTION.

What's worse than drilling in ANWR? Yellowstone, brought to you by Pepsi,

Originally posted by snafu7700
if its such a big story in your opinion, why dont you contribute the story to ATSNN? you've been around long enough that you should be able
to, or am i missing something?

I'm perfectly capable of submitting stories, but I was gonna let someone else take it. I didn't have the time to submit it to ATSNN when I found
it, so I figured someone else would once I posted this thread. No such luck though, so I'm probably going to write it up tonight.

OK, so am I the only one who cares that the fed. has no legit. claim to this land?

Not sure. It's a legal position that many elected representatives may not know you know about. Tell them. Write, phone, fax, and email.

Three separate supreme court decisions have ruled the government DOES have the right to own land.

Also remember the states, upon admission to the Union, were given the option of retaining possession of the unorganized public lands or ceding it to
the federal government. Most states decided they would rather the Feds have it and pay for managing and protecting it. In the western U.S., the
public lands (National Forests and BLM public lands) were the leftover junk that nobody wanted because it was considered worthless in the 19th
century.

Originally posted by dave_54
Also remember the states, upon admission to the Union, were given the option of retaining possession of the unorganized public lands or ceding it to
the federal government. Most states decided they would rather the Feds have it and pay for managing and protecting it. In the western U.S., the
public lands (National Forests and BLM public lands) were the leftover junk that nobody wanted because it was considered worthless in the 19th
century.

And this is why we have a Constitution. In order to break the Constitution, the feds must change it, and this was not done.

The states can’t agree to have their rights overlooked and this issue is an example of why. Without a Constitution a democracy is 3 wolves and a
sheep deciding what to eat. With that Constitution in place, the sheep can’t allow the wolves to eat him, even he wants to be eaten. Don’t
believe it? Go ask your doctor to help you kill yourself. The wolf (your doctor) cant kill the sheep (you) even if the sheep signs a piece of paper
giving control of his life to the wolf.

When those states were admitted to the Union, it was implied that they would have the same rights the first states did. One of those rights is to
authorize or not, as they wish, Constitutionally authorized use of land in their state. Unless the federal government wants to build roads or
use it for the military, they have no say what happens to it.

The best the feds could ever do is claim that by giving over control of these lands, the states lost the power to decide if the land will be used as
postal offices, military installations, or fed. office complexes.

The Constitution says they can’t sell it. Of course, look how far other Constitutional defenses have gotten us. If we went by what the
constitution said, I would own a RPGs and a 240B.

Ooo, so the legislature changes the laws to suit their pocketbooks, that's big news.

Never thought it could happen.

I know around Inks Lake, north of Austin, many realtors are licking at the chops that the land in and around will be sold off so that they can move
in. Over the past 6 or so years some of the land has been sold off and homes developed, but not in the numbers they want. The view is spectacular.

Surprises me not, does not anyone remember Interstate Commerce Act, various forms of drug legislation, etc? This is how congress works. The interest
of their constituents always, always, comes after the interest of lobbyist and the companies they rep.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.